Light AC down Dundee Scotland
Andy was top dollar.
Lost a few top dollar mates over the years: structural failure, CFIT, the drive home....doesn't make it any easier.
We hang on by a thread. Don't bother looking for reason, it often isn't there.
Lost a few top dollar mates over the years: structural failure, CFIT, the drive home....doesn't make it any easier.
We hang on by a thread. Don't bother looking for reason, it often isn't there.
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: S.E. England (for now)
Age: 41
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
First thought: "I would never do that, I always use the real DME box ..."
Second thought: "... but not on the aircraft with a G1000 and no real DME"
One to remember.
Second thought: "... but not on the aircraft with a G1000 and no real DME"
One to remember.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of questions for IR experienced guys:
1. On a 530, if the Dundee ILS 09 approach was selected loaded and activated would the GpS automatically load the correct ground based radio nav ILS frequency to receive the ground based signal AND toggle/default the CDI button to display that the VOR NAV source was being displayed on the HSI ?
2. If the pilot decided decided not to rotate the obs knob on the HSI to the correct inbound course ( I understand this task is purely for reference only and had no effect on the needles) would the GPS give an indication the OBS was not rotated to the correct approach course listed in the procedure database?
1. On a 530, if the Dundee ILS 09 approach was selected loaded and activated would the GpS automatically load the correct ground based radio nav ILS frequency to receive the ground based signal AND toggle/default the CDI button to display that the VOR NAV source was being displayed on the HSI ?
2. If the pilot decided decided not to rotate the obs knob on the HSI to the correct inbound course ( I understand this task is purely for reference only and had no effect on the needles) would the GPS give an indication the OBS was not rotated to the correct approach course listed in the procedure database?
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cambridge
Age: 38
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't say for certain as I don't use a 530, but based on a 430:
1. It depends - there is a setting for ILS CDI Autocapture on the AUX page, if set and using a loaded approach then it should switch, though often I find the auto switch will happen too late (you get GPS guidance as an overlay for the NDB outbound bit, but it seems in most cases it wants to establish you on the localiser track using GPS before switching), so have to do it manually anyway.
2. If you hit the OBS key that would suspend the approach - somewhere the display should indicate e.g. SUSP, but not anything more obvious than that. It's worth noting however that the AAIB report suggests the only way they could reproduce the flight path was to use a Direct to the NDB (and the OBS mode where the CDI indicates deviation from a specified track to/from the beacon, and the screen would show simple GPS distances), rather than loading the approach.
1. It depends - there is a setting for ILS CDI Autocapture on the AUX page, if set and using a loaded approach then it should switch, though often I find the auto switch will happen too late (you get GPS guidance as an overlay for the NDB outbound bit, but it seems in most cases it wants to establish you on the localiser track using GPS before switching), so have to do it manually anyway.
2. If you hit the OBS key that would suspend the approach - somewhere the display should indicate e.g. SUSP, but not anything more obvious than that. It's worth noting however that the AAIB report suggests the only way they could reproduce the flight path was to use a Direct to the NDB (and the OBS mode where the CDI indicates deviation from a specified track to/from the beacon, and the screen would show simple GPS distances), rather than loading the approach.
I guess I should add that I've been flying approaches behind a 530 (not 530W) for 13 years. I don't claim to understand every wrinkle of the box, I doubt that anyone does, but I certainly know how it works for approaches.
There has to be more to it than in the report. If you set up an ILS but forget to switch from GPS mode, you won't get a glideslope needle. That in itself should be enough to wake you up. Why would be you be descending on the glideslope if you don't have one?
I doubt that there's a 530 user around who hasn't at some time tried to fly an ILS with the box still in GPS mode, but after a couple of times you kind of wake up to the risk. And, as I said, there is no glideslope indication if you do that.
To expand on #1... it does bring up the ILS frequency as the standby, but it doesn't actually switch to it. You have to do that yourself.
There has to be more to it than in the report. If you set up an ILS but forget to switch from GPS mode, you won't get a glideslope needle. That in itself should be enough to wake you up. Why would be you be descending on the glideslope if you don't have one?
I doubt that there's a 530 user around who hasn't at some time tried to fly an ILS with the box still in GPS mode, but after a couple of times you kind of wake up to the risk. And, as I said, there is no glideslope indication if you do that.
To expand on #1... it does bring up the ILS frequency as the standby, but it doesn't actually switch to it. You have to do that yourself.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: far from home
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown with this box before and I have made the same mistake in failing to flip it from GPS to the ILS.
The report does state that in the absence of a GS, as indicated by the note on the chart the pilot may have elected to descend on a LOC only approach.
That wasn't the issue, it was using the wrong reference point for the distance, using the NDB ( GPS distance from the NDB )instead of the ILS DME, the descent was premature.
The report does state that in the absence of a GS, as indicated by the note on the chart the pilot may have elected to descend on a LOC only approach.
That wasn't the issue, it was using the wrong reference point for the distance, using the NDB ( GPS distance from the NDB )instead of the ILS DME, the descent was premature.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the wrong reference point for the distance, using the NDB ( GPS distance from the NDB )instead of the ILS DME, the descent was premature.
Essentially none of the components for the requested ILS DME 09 approach (localiser, glide slope , Dme) were used by the pilot to fly the approach ?
Last edited by piperboy84; 15th Jan 2016 at 17:53.
Essentially none of the components for the requested ILS DME 09 approach (localiser, glide slope , Dme) were used by the pilot to fly the approach ?
I don't know how Jepp/Garmin depict approaches in the UK, but in the US the obvious thing to do is select the ILS, then switch to NAV mode when established on the localizer inbound.
There are plenty of approaches like this in the US, not to mention much higher terrain, but I don't think anyone has ever said they are fundamentally unsafe. But it does help to select them correctly.
Could be that the "GPS is the devil's own handiwork" view of approach design, which seems to reign in the UK, makes people less familiar with doing approaches in a hybrid fashion like this. In the US 99% of pilots would use the GPS to fly to DND, rather than the ADF (because hardly any aircraft have one any more) - and this is explicitly approved by the FAA. But the report makes snooty remarks about this not being approved.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
report makes snooty remarks about this not being approved
Accident reports in the UK state facts about such things, not "snooty remarks".
Definitely registers on my snooty-o-meter.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Scotland
Age: 34
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the AAIB have overlooked an important point. There is not even a mention of it in the report and I believe this type of accident will happen again if nothing is done. They talk about the Bowtie and error capture but yet they missed a fundamental latent error designed into the approach plate. We do not need to move NDB's or more regulation regarding GPS training, we need the Airports / designers of Airfield plates to ensure that the information is clear and unambiguous. I feel very sorry for the Pilot and passenger, families and loved ones because this could of happened to anyone of us. What I am talking about is how the distance between the DND NDB and the base turn is depicted. It shows a turn commencing at D8. Now is that from the NDB or the IDDE? I beleive the Pilot misinterpreted the plate and flew the 8 miles from the NDB. After very close examination in my front room drinking hot chocolate it becomes clear. Why not put the aid ident next to the dme range like they did years ago? A simple solution. The flight was 30 mins, it was IMC and no Automatics, Airfield plates need to be straightforward and in my opinion this one is not. Many other Airfields are very similar and when the holes in the cheese line up Aircraft bite. Hard.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weathergirly, there is only one DME at Dundee, so D8 can only refer to that (i.e at the airfield). If the approach had been flown with sole reference to ground based aids - for which the approach plate is written - then the only ranges a DME could display would be the correct ones. The problem was essentially that there was a mix of GPS and ground based aids in use. The approach plate was not written for that.
What you also need to consider is that thousands of pilots over the years have flown that approach and not come to grief; it is not that approach that was at fault.
There is perhaps a deeper issue here - that of the widespread use of GPS but no requirement to be trained in its use - but that is not an approach design issue.
What you also need to consider is that thousands of pilots over the years have flown that approach and not come to grief; it is not that approach that was at fault.
There is perhaps a deeper issue here - that of the widespread use of GPS but no requirement to be trained in its use - but that is not an approach design issue.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Scotland
Age: 34
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate your comments but I stand by what I said. The AAIB have assumed what the Pilot did without much evidence to back it up. In my opinion they should have considered what I have mentioned above. They didn't. It is so easy to make this mistake and it is my belief there is a high probability that the Pilot did just that. This Pilot had plenty of experience reading plates and in the majority of cases a distance range between 2 points (DND and Base Turn) is just that. It is not normally off a dme positioned elsewhere. I agree, making up your own approach is dangerous and substituting NAV AIDS is not a good idea. I just think in this case it is more likely that in this Pilots mind when he arrived at the DND he was thinking 8 miles then I make the right turn. It is without doubt a poor depiction that could easily be rectified. If nothing else comes from the recommendations made by the AAIB then a simple ammendment to the plate would ensure that this latent error won't be the cause of an accident in the future.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weathergirly
Page 26 of the AAIB report makes 6 recommendations. They seem to have what you suggest covered. There is also a GNSS approach on it's way. I'll bet the delay to this is to do with the present position of the NDB.
Page 26 of the AAIB report makes 6 recommendations. They seem to have what you suggest covered. There is also a GNSS approach on it's way. I'll bet the delay to this is to do with the present position of the NDB.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Inverness
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the Jeppesen version of the plates dated Feb 2015 it's a bit clearer that it is 8D from the DME.
We don't know which plates the pilot was using, but still an easy mistake to make flying single pilot, and no auto pilot I would imagine.
Looking at the warnings regarding the LOC and GS indications, I think it says that they might not show at the north of the LOC when below GS, so why once the base turn was complete would you immediately convert to a LOC DME approach if you never saw a GS indication?
We don't know which plates the pilot was using, but still an easy mistake to make flying single pilot, and no auto pilot I would imagine.
Looking at the warnings regarding the LOC and GS indications, I think it says that they might not show at the north of the LOC when below GS, so why once the base turn was complete would you immediately convert to a LOC DME approach if you never saw a GS indication?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report never mentioned the currency status of the pitot static, altimeter or VOT test, with the plane being out of annual, AP inop, no ferry permit and the pilots piston twin ticket lapsed and the LOC/GS gear not utilsed for the approach you'd have to wonder what else was deficient for the flight.